posted at 11:21 am on December 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How would a politician who argued today that guns “bring us together” and gave personal testimony to using handguns for personal protection be greeted by Democrats like Harry Reid? Why not ask Reid himself — or at least the 2010 version of Harry Reid, discovered by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski? Appearing with then-NRA VP Wayne LaPierre at an opening of a shooting park in Clark County, Nevada, Reid fondly recalled the days of sport shooting with his three brothers, and how Reid protected himself against “a lot of bad people” while serving on the Nevada Gaming Commission:

At the time, Reid opposed the renewal of the so-called “assault weapons” ban. It probably wouldn’t have gone anywhere that year anyway, since Republicans controlled the Senate and George W. Bush was in the White House. However, Reid’s opposition undercut any serious effort on the part of Democrats that year to keep the law in force.

Now, of course, Reid isevolving on the issue, but Reid’s own personal experiences are just as relevant today as in 2004.

Meanwhile, National Journal reports that there seems to be some bipartisan consensus on restrictions of magazines and background checks that could result in legislation:

In an incredibly divided Congress, it seems ridiculous to assume lawmakers would focus on policy before politics. (For Exhibit A of political gamesmanship, look at the back and forth on a fiscal-cliff deal on Tuesday.) But on guns, it turns out there is a lot of rational agreement among even gun enthusiasts about trying to protect innocent people from being killed by them.

New rules being tossed around by lawmakers include banning high-capacity magazine clips, the kind that allow hundreds of rounds to be fired at a time, and tightening up background checks for gun purchases. Existing gun laws could also be enforced with greater regularity, such as compelling or enticing states to do a better job of reporting red flags like drug abuse or domestic violence to a national crime database.

“Obviously that system is only going to be as effective as the completeness of the data,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who supports banning high-capacity magazine clips and renewing the assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Collins identified the background-check system as one of the ripest areas where Republicans and Democrats and pro-gun and antigun members can find common ground. “That may not be as easy as you think. The issue is, how do you compel states to share the information about mental illness, adjudications, while at the same time being sensitive to the privacy rights of the individuals? So those issues are complicated.”

Typically, background checks include waivers on records privacy. The HIPAA laws on medical records may complicate this, though, and the push to get better mental-illness reporting might keep more people from seeking help for those afflictions. Still, the NRA and most other gun groups support background checks as long as they aren’t used to unfairly deny Americans the right to purchase firearms.

The “magazine clips” issue is another story, though. First, I’ve heard of “magazines” and “clips,” but not “magazine clips.” Assuming that we’re talking about restrictions on high-capacity magazinesand clips, that’s probably an outcome to which the NRA and gun-rights supporters will have to resign themselves, even though there isn’t any evidence that restricting sales to 10-round magazines for semiautomatic weapons will reduce the number of victims of madmen, especially if no one is armed when the gunman has to switch magazines.

Lindsey Graham’s response is on point:

“Here’s the temptation of people in my business to react and say we did something. Well, at the end of the day there are some problems that just go beyond the government’s ability to solve,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

An assault-weapons ban? “I don’t feel like that’s going to stop anything,” Graham said. “We live in a dangerous world. It’s always been that way, and you just can’t have the government solve every problem.”

The “assault”-weapons ban didn’t solve the problem when it was in place, and wouldn’t have applied in the Newtown shooting anyway. Connecticut had its own “assault”-weapons ban in place. The issue isn’t the guns; it’s the shooter. Harry Reid would have told you that if you asked him, at least in 2010.

Update: MRC TV has a clip from 1995 in which Reid’s Senate colleague Dianne Feinstein explains why she felt safer with a gun, too:

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

To be fair, though, it sounds as if she was about to argue the opposite as the clip ends in bringing up “terrorism from the far extremist left, and terrorism from the far extremist right.” Still, both of these Senators felt free to arm themselves when threatened; will they recall that when debating how to disarm the rest of us?

Update II: The Right Newz says he found the video, and in any case, this took place in 2010, not 2004. I’ve fixed the headline and references within the post.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

How many family members or co-workers of these folks say there were signs in the weeks leading up to the shooting? If it isn’t 100% it is pretty darn close. And many of them had actually been treated for mental illness at some point in their past. In short, I am sure there are things that can be done better but I would suggest that it may be harder to identify what those things might be.

Happy Nomad on December 19, 2012 at 1:28 PM

First of all, I suggest an old-fashioned, national advertising campaign, a la “Say No To Drugs.”

I know an effective deterrent that works here in Utah is that our schools are staffed with a “Resource Officer” who works for the local police department. Their police cars are parked out in front of the school, they are in a recognizable uniform, and they have their side-arms with them in public view. When even the slightest threat materializes they are there and get back-up very quickly. There have been some weird instances of threats on schools but due to those officers being on site they were dealt with quickly and effectively.

As for an “assault weapons” ban, until Congress, the media, and most Americans wrap their small minds around what is actually an assault weapon and what is not…maybe they should concentrate on things they actually know about?

coldwarrior on December 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I agree! How can they categorize my weapon as an assault weapon before it’s even been used to commit assault? So when are they going to ban “assault” knives, “assault” hammers, “assault” cars and “assault” fists?

Secondly, as a backup, in case the guard is taken out or a shooter times his/her rounds, I would look at a secure gun safe that CCW teachers could access.

We are either going to trust teachers or we’re not. We’re trusting them alone in a room, usually with no camera, with our kids. We do the same with pilots. I am an ex-public-school teacher – and were I still teaching, I would be having a very serious and problematic debate with myself, my principal and my superintendent, about demanding my right to defend myself and my students.

I guarantee that from this day forward I would keep a gun in my car, legal or not.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Why a “secure gun safe”? When someone is attacking and shooting up the school, how many people will be able to quickly put in a combo to open a safe under fire? Where would the safe be and if the shooter starts there, how do others get past the shooter to get into the safe?

If you’re going to say we either trust teachers or we don’t, then by God TRUST them – don’t waffle on it. If they have or are willing to get a CCW – let them be armed.

After all the “Let It Burn” feelings I have, I do believe that Sandy Hook is a discussion that would be productive for America: To try to arrive at an honest, nonpartisan solution, and kick the demagogues out of the public debate.

It’s either that or let the gun-control wars rage.

Dems and Reps are all parents. This this thing needs to be worked out by individuals of good faith and bipartisan intent.

Why a “secure gun safe”? When someone is attacking and shooting up the school, how many people will be able to quickly put in a combo to open a safe under fire? Where would the safe be and if the shooter starts there, how do others get past the shooter to get into the safe?

If you’re going to say we either trust teachers or we don’t, then by God TRUST them – don’t waffle on it. If they have or are willing to get a CCW – let them be armed.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Gun safe in my classroom. In each classroom. That way any CCW teacher or sub can use it, no matter which room they’re in. Very doable, and I could access it very quickly by fingerprint or other quick method other than turning tumblers.

If there’s anything we can do better – to specifically try to catch these folks befre they go off the deep end, I am open to discussion.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Because of current federal regs (HIPAA and such), I cannot even see the doctor’s treatments, charges or prescriptions for my 20 and 22 year old sons, even though I pay all the bills and they’re under my health insurance. Start there.

Gun safe in my classroom. In each classroom. That way any CCW teacher or sub can use it, no matter which room they’re in. Very doable, and I could access it very quickly by fingerprint or other quick method other than turning tumblers.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Do you trust the teachers or not?
If you trust them, what’s wrong with CCW?

I don’t believe it’s safe to just have the guns on the teachers’ persons. I understand your intent, and I am a gun owner. Too many ways for things to go wrong.

1.

Armed security to prevent psycho from entering school

.

2. Backup is a quickly accessible gun safe in the classroom.

I would not feel confortable asking anti-gun parents to trust a teacher who was actually strapping while teaching. A little compromise is not the worst thing if it gets pretty close to the solution.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM

So basically you don’t trust the teachers. But for some reason you would trust some other “armed security” to be in the school with a gun.
Sorry I don’t get it. You’re starting to sound like a waffling lib.

Do you trust the teachers or not?
If you trust them, what’s wrong with CCW?

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I don’t trust all teachers.. no.

What if a teacher him/herself goes nuts? Do you want the principal to be able to lock them out of the gun safe or not? What if they get fired but come back the next day, most of the school unaware, and take their students hostage? What if the gun falls out of the holster?

Etc.; etc. etc.

DOn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Bottom line…. you have X percentage of parents who will block teachers actually carrying while teaching. That is the truth and you have no argument to convince me otherwise.

Classroom safe is the next best thiing.

I am a solutions-oriented person. I am not going to pick that hill to die on – to force libs to accept CCW in tbhe classroom or else my own kid doesn’t get protected.

So basically you don’t trust the teachers. But for some reason you would trust some other “armed security” to be in the school with a gun.
Sorry I don’t get it. You’re starting to sound like a waffling lib.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I trust well-vetted security more than less-well-vetted teachers, yes.

Have you ever taught? I have. You are never -ever going to get national acceptance of teachers carrying on their bodies in the classroom. Take that to the bank. If you were, we would be getting ready for President Romney.

I want the teacher to be the second line of defense. As such, a classroom gun safe is an acceptable solution to me that has a much better chance of passage.

You can call me names, sure. I can also call you an uncompromising ideologue who will get in the way of a workable solution… but I won’t call names.

Ah, so Reid said it in 2010 when he had a tough re-election campaign going. I’m sure his own internal argument is that what is said on the campaign trail does not equate with what he says/does while legislating.

What if a teacher him/herself goes nuts? Do you want the principal to be able to lock them out of the gun safe or not? What if they get fired but come back the next day, most of the school unaware, and take their students hostage? What if the gun falls out of the holster?

Really? And how would you do that?

DOn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Back atcha on that one – in answer to all of your what ifs.

If you don’t trust the teacher, he/she should not be in the classroom to begin with – and likely would not be able or willing to get a CCW.

If you don’t trust the teacher, he/she should not be in the classroom to begin with – and likely would not be able or willing to get a CCW.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Dude, what percentage of teachers are liberals? What percentage of parents?

Would you throw away a gun-safe idea if liberals blocked CCW in the classroom?

Prting thought: Can you tell me how you propose to convince the 52% who voted for 0bama to allow CCW in the classroom? Can you give me a realistic, passable proposal? A good solution that’s doable is better than one that is perfect but unattainable…
JMO.

Dems and Reps are all parents. This this thing needs to be worked out by individuals of good faith and bipartisan intent.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:35 PM

You really cannot believe that the media, BHO and the Democratic party would allow “individuals of good faith and bipartisan intent” to direct a debate in this country. The last 12 years are proof positive that there will be no debate on this issue. There will be a diktat issued banning and confiscating all firearms–unless gun-owners successfully motivate themselves to resist that outcome.

ssuming that we’re talking about restrictions on high-capacity magazinesand clips, that’s probably an outcome to which the NRA and gun-rights supporters will have to resign themselves,

Like hell they will. There is absolutely no logical justification to gimp magazines because only law abiding citizens will be gimped, giving criminals with guns and non-gimped magazines the advantage.

I think some of the hysterical people on the right need to come back to their senses and realize that guns and magazines are not the problem.

Look, we have 3D computer printers on the market now that will allow anybody to print their own non-gimped ammo magazines in the comfort of their home. They can make as many as they want. Democrats and their RINO allies can’t possibly stop people from getting their hands on so-called high-capacity magazines. The only thing that banning them will accomplish is to prevent law abiding citizens from using them for self defense.

If you don’t trust the teacher, he/she should not be in the classroom to begin with – and likely would not be able or willing to get a CCW.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I’m talking about making sausage here.

I TOTALLY see your point – don’t think I don’t.

I am tired of gridlock and I have a CEO mentality, and I want workable solutions instead of gridlock. Gridlock is killing America. We have to make some compromises – make sausage – and try to go forward.

The discussion even on conservative boards is about guns, and not about sending mentally disabled into an institution, for life if needed, instead of their family care (with their warped thinking their dear relative is harmless), which time after time proved they cannot cope with the situation.

In a few years people are going to be able to download and print ammo magazines much like people can download and print a document. They’ll have to get a spring but they can probably use one from a gimped-magazine or make their own. Magazines can be redesigned, perhaps, to use a generic spring.

I trust well-vetted security more than less-well-vetted teachers, yes.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:47 PM

So the entire process for educating, training, certifying, and OJT for a teacher is “less well vetted” than someone getting a CCW and getting hired as a security guard? My son’s roomate is a security guard with CCW – no training other than the course required to get his CCW. So what makes you think any kind of hired armed security would be more well-vetted?

You’re waffling on whether or not you trust the teachers.
If we can’t trust them, then they should not be in the classroom.
If they are trustworthy enough to be in the classroom, then allow them CCW if they so choose.

If you want to discuss solutions, then discuss real world solutions.
The kind of logic you’re using is what causes bad rules of engagement to get our troops killed on the battlefield.
How is a gun safe that the teacher could quickly and easily open (a necessity for it to do any good) any safer in your what if scenarios than having the teacher have CCW? It’s not. If the teacher has a CCW, it means he/she has been trained with that gun and “vetted” in some way by the local police – no different than any hired armed security guard.

And whether I have ever taught in a school is irrelevant to this issue.

I predict that if Democrats and their RINO allies ban high-capacity magazines that it will be a boon to the 3D printing market and have the unintended consequence of popularizing 3D printing of non-gimped magazines and inevitably lead to people designing and printing ultra-high capacity magazines.

In other words banning high-capacity magazines is not only impossible but also counterproductive.

I am tired of gridlock and I have a CEO mentality, and I want workable solutions instead of gridlock. Gridlock is killing America. We have to make some compromises – make sausage – and try to go forward.

The sacrifice of teachers like Miss Soto demand it.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM

.
When approx half the population are bound and determined that the sausage will be this kind, and approx the other half are bound and determined that it WILL NOT BE THAT KIND, what are you going to do ?

I’m willing (but hoping it doesn’t come to that) to go to Civil War against my fellow Americans over this issue.
It appears that they are willing to do the same thing.

Prting thought: Can you tell me how you propose to convince the 52% who voted for 0bama to allow CCW in the classroom? Can you give me a realistic, passable proposal? A good solution that’s doable is better than one that is perfect but unattainable…
JMO.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM

No. We will not convince Obumble voters to accept any solution that actually solves the problem. Realistic proposal – yes; also passable by the Dems in charge – no.
You’re putting far more faith in the Dems than I have regarding their willingness to do something that will actually solve the problem. They want gun control – that’s it. And if you don’t understand that, then you will be right in line with getting their “passable” solution that solves nothing – and then they will use the next shooting (and it WILL happen) to justify total disarmament of the population – a la UK.

In a few years people are going to be able to download and print ammo magazines much like people can download and print a document. They’ll have to get a spring but they can probably use one from a gimped-magazine or make their own. Magazines can be redesigned, perhaps, to use a generic spring.

FloatingRock on December 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Actually – right now lots of people with basic machine shop equipment and knowledge can make any size “high capacity assault magazine clip” they might want, and can turn any gun into full auto or make it from scratch.

If your family members is nuts, say something.
cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:30 PM

They do. The problem is nothing can be done until they commit a crime thanks to the ACLU and liberals putting an end to involuntary commitments. A very close friend of mine had a sister who was diagnosed with schizophrenia. When they tried to have her committed the state refused because she had not committed a crime and was over the age of 18. Less than a year later she stabbed herself to death with a butchers knife. Her grandmother found her dead in the bathroom. This problem has everything to do with our mental health system. Nothing to do with guns.

Because of current federal regs (HIPAA and such), I cannot even see the doctor’s diagnosis, treatments, charges or prescriptions for my 20 and 22 year old sons, even though I pay all the bills and they’re under my health insurance. Start there.

The discussion even on conservative boards is about guns, and not about sending mentally disabled into an institution, for life if needed, instead of their family care (with their warped thinking their dear relative is harmless), which time after time proved they cannot cope with the situation.

Keep it up guys!

Rookie on December 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM

The discussion is as much about guns as the HHS mandate is about free contraception for sluts. In other words- not so much. There are higher principles attached even as the rat-eared wonder and his filthy party scheme and plot how to go about taking away private gun ownership.

And if you think there is any real talk about changing the mental health system then you might also be a client! Dems see 20 tiny bodies and they jumped on it to further the same ideas they’ve had for at least twenty years. And don’t think for a minute that the rat-eared wonder gives a damn about the victims of last weeks shooting.

“Here’s the temptation of people in my business to react and say we did something. Well, at the end of the day there are some problems that just go beyond the government’s ability to solve,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

An assault-weapons ban? “I don’t feel like that’s going to stop anything,” Graham said. “We live in a dangerous world. It’s always been that way, and you just can’t have the government solve every problem.”

Can’t disagree with the man. Good on him for saying something that a lot of people need to hear more often.

Just to be clear – I would KEEP the gun in the gun safe… not having the teacher carry it in or out of the school every day.

cane_loader on December 19, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Hey, I don’t disagree with the idea of allowing teachers to carry but I can also hear the squeals of protest from the NEA and AFT. Particularly those who teach in the inner city where the students are probably more proficient in shooting than the teachers.

Hey, I don’t disagree with the idea of allowing teachers to carry but I can also hear the squeals of protest from the NEA and AFT. Particularly those who teach in the inner city where the students are probably more proficient in shooting than the teachers.

Why a “secure gun safe”? When someone is attacking and shooting up the school, how many people will be able to quickly put in a combo to open a safe under fire? Where would the safe be and if the shooter starts there, how do others get past the shooter to get into the safe?

If you’re going to say we either trust teachers or we don’t, then by God TRUST them – don’t waffle on it. If they have or are willing to get a CCW – let them be armed.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM

lol, this nation couldn’t even arm pilots in the fresh wake of hte 9/11 atrocity. Govt leftists deliberately made the program as difficult as possible. Pilots who ALREADY hold everybody’s lives in their hands and who ALREADY underwent routine psych screenings had to have another to be armed. Had to take their own vacation time to make an arduous trip to the middle of nowhere FAR from any airstrip, to attend the training and certification course – pilots who are predominantly former military pilots and already familiar with handguns. Then had to follow rigid and cumbersome locked storage requirements and were subjected to teh same ridiculous security theatre over them, just to get them into the cockpit of a plane whose fate they ALREADY control.

As for Mr Morrissey’s laughable ‘hope springs eternal’ that fascist Feinstein might see reason – she was traumatized by the shooting of her co-council member Harvey Milk in 1978. She never got over it, and has set about trying to disarm everybody else ever since. Even while she was actively carrying a concealed weapon. She was the author of the ’94 ban, she’s already written the new ban attempt, her staff was already in meetings with the ATF since the re-election, plotting out the new putsch [sic]. The recent slaughters fell into their laps, the assault on our 2nd amendment rights was already under way.

Ya – but it’s still the right answer.
Unfortunately the government always makes a mess of whatever they do – so we’re screwed.
I’m just stating what I think are the right solutions. I don’t expect the government to do anything right about this issue to actually solve the problem.

Keeping a gun in a safe is an idiotic idea. Getting a CHL means carrying it on your person, so there is no point in forcing them to lock it in a safe.

What if you’re a teacher and your classroom is the first the gunman visits. You going to call a timeout until you can retrieve the firearm from the safe, or are you and your students expendable?

Operating a firearm is not freaking rocket science. Any person with marginal intelligence can learn to use one efficiently in very little time. That being said, it should be the teachers choice and not forced upon them.

FYI, Lonestar Handgun in San Antonio, TX has offered the CHL course to teachers for $100. Over 300 teachers signed up the first day it was offered.

And, even if they were seconds away, they have absolutely no obligation to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help is on the way, Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. (1981).

The police cannot be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), and the government is not liable when it fails to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent even if it has knowledge of previous abuse, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

I think it’s quite obvious that while the Dems are all gung-ho to take our guns, the police and “important” people’s guards will still be armed. I think the easiest way for our side to get around this, is to have Republican governors start deputizing licensed gun owners as some kind of “civil marshal”, thereby giving them the right to carry their gun anywhere just like the police. Kind of like how Romney claimed he was going to issue Obamacare wavers to all 50 states.

This is what you get when you put your trust in a liar. Politicians will say and do anything to get elected or re-elected, while possessing very short memories. You will be better off putting your future in the Lotto then in these people.

A few days after divesting its stake in the firm that started it all, AIG, and at a profit at that (ignoring that the risk has merely been onboarded by the Fed whose DV01 is now $2+ billion as a result), the US Treasury continues to divest of all its bailout stake, this time proceeding to GM, where the channel stuffing firm just announced it would buyback 200MM shares from the US government at a price of $27.50. More importantly, the “Treasury said it intends to sell its other remaining 300.1 million shares through various means in an orderly fashion within the next 12-15 months, subject to market conditions. Treasury intends to begin its disposition of those 300.1 million common shares as soon as January 2013 pursuant to a pre-arranged written trading plan. The manner, amount, and timing of the sales under the plan are dependent upon a number of factors.” Assuming a price in the $27.50 range, this implies a nearly 50% loss on the government’s breakeven price of $54. So much for the “profit” spin. One hopes all those Union votes were well worth the now booked $40+ billion cost to all taxpayers.

One wonders why the US government did not open up this particular buyback to a public tender: after all some taxpayers may still care about the financial mismanagement of Uncle Sam. Then again, perhaps not.
—————————————-

Who expects our government to act in the interests of its citizens? It’s always political. It’s always about their careers and ability to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Cody1991 on December 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM

So someone needs to get the ball rolling on a class-action shareholder/fiduciary lawsuit and either get GM and or the Feds to cough up some cash for us suffering the losses, or allow us to offset student loans, bankruptcies, etc against the governments losses of OUR money.

A total gun prohibition for having a firearm in any non-DoD facility, including security guards and Secret Service.

That includes the Capitol Building, White House, all DoJ facilities, all courts, and any part of the executive branch that is not directly used by DoD for firearms purposes. That includes all Congressional offices in their Districts or State they represent. Only the actual fort portion of Fort Knox is allowed a waiver, the facility where all the gold and other valuables are held is NOT. Our federal government can show us just how safe the US Mint is with no armed guards.

I want each and every Congresscritter, the President, all the SCOTUS, all lesser federal courts, and all staff members in the executive, exclusive of DoD, to be gun free. FBI and other parts of the government that need to be armed can house their arms at State or local facilities and sign them in and out on a daily basis as their workplace IS NOT SAFE with weapons there.

I want all of the US federal government JUST AS SAFE as the elementary school at Sandy Hook was. Really, if it is good enough for CHILDREN then it must be splendiferous for adults, no? Really nothing BAD could ever, not once, happen in a GUN FREE ZONE so they will all be PERFECTLY SAFE. Right?

Assuming that we’re talking about restrictions on high-capacity magazinesand (sic) clips, that’s probably an outcome to which the NRA and gun-rights supporters will have to resign themselves, even though there isn’t any evidence that restricting sales to 10-round magazines for semiautomatic weapons will reduce the number of victims of madmen, especially if no one is armed when the gunman has to switch magazines.

How can we stop this assault on the 2nd amendment?
The gun grabbers control the media and the media shapes the narrative. The media didn’t waist any time exploiting this tragedy to push their gun-control agenda and this time it seems to be working. I’ve heard friends parrot the media’s “no one needs an assault rifle” riff. These friends don’t own guns and don’t know much about them, but they have always defended the 2nd amendment. Now they are scared for their children and are making emotional decisions and the media is feeding their fear.

There isn’t a single reporter or Republican who will ask the Dems and Obama why they want to take guns from citizens but have no problem with the government arming Mexican drug lords. Republicans are too scared to defend the 2nd amendment because they are scared of the press. The 2nd amendment was meant to keep the government from oppressing the citizens and now the same people who were so scared of the government when the Patriot Act was passed are ok with the government banning guns.

Crazy people have been killing innocents for a very long time. In fact, some of the media’s and hollywood elite’s favorite people are guilty of this crime – Castro, Stalin, and Che to name a few.

A total gun prohibition for having a firearm in any non-DoD facility, including security guards and Secret Service.

That includes the Capitol Building, White House, all DoJ facilities, all courts, and any part of the executive branch that is not directly used by DoD for firearms purposes. That includes all Congressional offices in their Districts or State they represent. Only the actual fort portion of Fort Knox is allowed a waiver, the facility where all the gold and other valuables are held is NOT. Our federal government can show us just how safe the US Mint is with no armed guards.

I want each and every Congresscritter, the President, all the SCOTUS, all lesser federal courts, and all staff members in the executive, exclusive of DoD, to be gun free. FBI and other parts of the government that need to be armed can house their arms at State or local facilities and sign them in and out on a daily basis as their workplace IS NOT SAFE with weapons there.

I want all of the US federal government JUST AS SAFE as the elementary school at Sandy Hook was. Really, if it is good enough for CHILDREN then it must be splendiferous for adults, no? Really nothing BAD could ever, not once, happen in a GUN FREE ZONE so they will all be PERFECTLY SAFE. Right?

ajacksonian on December 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM

I like this idea.
Let’s expand on this plan and make the big name, gun grabbing celebrities also as safe as the rest of us and have gun free zones backstage at concerts, movie shoots, studios and the red carpet at the Academy Awards. No more of those guys with the scary guns walking around them at concerts and no guns allowed in their hollywood mansions.

While we’re at it, let’s make Congress forgo their pension plans and get on the wonderful social security plan. They also need to take advantage of this fantastic Obamacare that has been foisted on the public. Let them pay for their living expenses, their extra houses, their vacations (ie conference, business trips).